Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N.Jayachandran vs E.Sambasiva Reddy on 19 June, 2024
APHC010262612017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
FIRST APPEAL NO: 93/2017
Between:
1. N. Jayachandran, S/o N. Sahadevulu, aged about 45 years,
employee, R/o Flat NO.101, Raghava Enclave, Santhinagar, M.R.
Palli, Tirupati City, Chittoor District.
...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
AND
1. E. Sambasiva Reddy, S/o E. Munaswamy Reddy, aged about 54
years, Sanskrit Teacher, R/o at D.No.2-1298, Padmavathi Nagar,
Piler town, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
-
Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment, dated 14.09.2016
in O.S.No.231 of 2014, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V
Additional District Judge, Tirupati (Additional District Judge" for short),
whereunder the learned Additional Judge dealing with the suit filed by the
plaintiff to grant a decree for refund of a sum of Rs.16,20,700/- and to
grant damages of Rs.10,00,000/-, partly allowed the suit decreeing the
same for a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- with proportionate costs with interest at
6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization and
dismissed the rest of the claim. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment,
the plaintiff filed the present appeal suit.
2) The parties to this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to
as described before the learned Additional District Judge for the sake of
convenience.
3) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments
in the suit, is that the defendant represented that he is absolute owner of
vacant site in Sy.No.467 of Avilala Village accounts with plot No.140. He
made the plaintiff to believe that the title is very clear to the said property
and offered to sell the same. One B. Jagannadham Naidu, N. Babu
Naidu and K. Sambvaiah acted as mediators. The sale price was fixed
as Rs.15,45,700/-. An agreement of sale was reduced into writing on
02.03.2012. The defendant received advance amount of Rs.4,10,000/-.
The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration on or before
01.04.2012. As per the terms of agreement, the plaintiff paid the balance
consideration of Rs.11,35,700/- on 29.03.2012 and the defendant
executed a registered sale deed accordingly. Though the plaintiff
demanded the defendant to give all the link documents at the time of
registration of the sale deed, but the defendant deliberately managed
with a promise to hand over the same in the later time. On 14.10.2012
the plaintiff went to the site to construct a compound wall by engaging
large number of collies. Then one O. Venkatareddy came to the site and
claimed that the site belongs to him and it is in Sy.No.478/2C and that
the vendor of the plaintiff did not purchase the land in Sy.No.478/2C and
he purchased the land in Sy.No.467 of Avilala village accounts.
Venkatareddy showed all the link documents to the plaintiff. Plaintiff took
legal opinion and came to know that the defendant and his vendors did
not purchase the site situated in Sy.No.478/2C. The defendant sold away
the property though he had no title. In the presence of the defendant and
O. Venkatareddy, the plaintiff got surveyed the land in the month of
October, 2012 through a surveyor who confirmed that the site was not
covered in survey numbers mentioned in the sale deed executed by the
defendant. Though the market value in sale deed is mentioned as
Rs.6,67,000/- with regard to the consideration, but the original price is
Rs.15,45,700/-. The defendant received the entire amount from the
plaintiff at the time of entering into agreement of sale and at the time of
registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff spent Rs.25,000/- towards
registration charges. Further he paid Rs.35,000/- towards brokerage
charges. He totally spent Rs.16,65,700/-. Plaintiff issued a legal notice,
dated 19.10.2012, calling upon the defendant to refund the amount of
Rs.16,65,700/-. Defendant received the legal notice and he did not give
any reply. Plaintiff filed a criminal case which was forwarded to
Tiruchanoor police station. Then the defendant came forward for
settlement.
4) After legal notice and police complaint, the defendant and
his vendors called for mediation and the defendant agreed to pay a sum
of Rs.16,65,700/- with interest to the plaintiff on or before December,
2012. It was held in the month of March, 2012. Later, the defendant
postponed the payment and conducted another mediation with his
vendors. Defendant handed over an understanding letter, dated
10.04.2023, involving the vendors to bear some amounts payable to the
plaintiff. In the said understanding letter, the defendant and his vendors
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,85,000/- . Some of the previous vendors
of the defendant signed but plaintiff did not agree for the terms
mentioned in the understanding letter and demanded the defendant to
pay the entire amount of Rs.16,65,700/-. The defendant made oral
promise and failed to keep up the promise and postponed the payment.
Hence, the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,20,700/- and further
claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages.
5) The defendant got filed a written statement denying the case
of the plaintiff and contending in substance that the property sold by the
defendant to the plaintiff was covered under Sy.Nos.467, 478/2A,
478/2B, 478/2C and 478/2D of Avilala village accounts. The contention
that the property is covered in Sy.No.478/2C is not correct. It is false that
the property belonged to O. Venkatareddy. To the legal notice of the
plaintiff, defendant gave a reply on 30.10.2012 through Mr. M. Dorai Raj
and Smt. A. Madhavi, Advocates, Tirupati. Plaintiff suppressed the real
facts and filed a false suit. Plaintiff purchased the property with full
knowledge of record. He has no right to question about the title of the
defendant. The sale deed was executed for Rs.6,67,000/- only. Even
according to the plaintiff, an understanding letter was executed on
10.04.2013. The plaintiff is a party to the same. According to the same,
the defendant has to pay only Rs.2,14,000/- by 28.04.2013. Though the
defendant tendered the said amount, but the plaintiff is evading to
receive the same. The terms of agreement, dated 10.04.2013 were acted
upon. Plaintiff received Rs.3,00,000/- from C.K. Srinivasulu under a
cheque, dated 10.10.2013, bearing No.110103, drawn on State Bank of
Hyderabad. He collected document of 100 ankanams from K. Guna
towards his share of Rs.7,64,000/-. He agreed to receive Rs.2,07,000/-
from M. Subramanyam Reddy and collected Rs.1,30,000/- and agreed to
receive only Rs.10,000/-. Insofar as the defendant is concerned, he is
always ready to pay a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- for which the plaintiff is
evading to receive. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Additional
District Judge settled the following issues for trail:
(1) Whether the court fee paid on the plaint is correct?
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the
defendant?
(3) To what relief?
7) During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 to
P.W.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. The defendant
himself examined as D.W.1, but no documents were marked.
8) The learned Additional District Judge on hearing both sides
and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence made
findings that Ex.A.3 was concluded agreement and that P.W.1 admitted
the contents thereof fully and with appropriate findings ultimately decreed
the suit for a sum of Rs.2,14,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the
unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present appeal suit.
9) Now, in deciding the present appeal suit, the point for
determination is whether the judgment, dated 14.09.2016 in O.S.No.231
of 2014, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District
Judge, Tirupati, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are
any grounds to interfere with the same by granting a decree as prayed
for by the plaintiff?
POINT:-
10) Sri P. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the
appellant, would contend in accordance with the pleadings canvassed by
the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The
substance of his contention is that there was no dispute about the receipt
of entire sale consideration as mentioned in Ex.A.1 which D.W.1
categorically admitted in cross examination. The sale deed was executed
subsequent to Ex.A.1 and value of the property as mentioned in Ex.A.1
was only the Sub-Registrar value and the market value was more.
Admissions made by D.W.1 prove the fact that the value of the property
as mentioned in Ex.A.2 was lesser than market value. The title
canvassed by the defendant was defective and a third party claimed
rights over the property. Though the defendant promised to reimburse
the full amount but he did not keep up the promise and they enforced
Ex.A.3 so-called understanding letter against the will of the plaintiff and
thrown the same on his face. As there was no other go, the plaintiff got
received the so-called understanding letter under Ex.A.3. Even the
defendant did not take any care to see that his vendors would sign
Ex.A.3. The terms in Ex.A.3 were not acted upon. So, the plaintiff
instituted the suit to recover the entire amount which he paid. The
learned Additional District Judge with erroneous appreciation of
evidence, granted decree for meagre amount of Rs.2,14,000/- which was
supposed to be paid by the defendant. The property was not located in
Sy.No.467 of Avilala village accounts as canvassed by the defendant, as
such, the plaintiff wanted to get rid of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. He examined
himself as P.W.1 and got marked relevant documents and also examined
P.W.2 and P.W.3 mediators. The learned Additional District Judge
erroneously decreed the suit for meagre sum, as such, appeal is liable to
allowed so as to grant a decree as claimed by the plaintiff.
11) Sri K. Sri Sai Sanjay, learned counsel, representing Sri T.
Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend
that the plaintiff had got knowledge about the survey numbers in which
the plaint schedule property was located. The contention that the
defendant represented that the plaint schedule property is located in
Sy.No.467 is falsified by virtue of the contents of Ex.A.1 agreement of
sale and Ex.A.2 sale deed because a layout was prepared pertaining to
different survey numbers and those details were there in Ex.A.1 and
Ex.A.2. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had defective title
over the property. However, as the plaintiff was not interested to
continue with the property which he got from the defendant, a mediation
was conducted for which the previous vendors of the defendant and the
plaintiff agreed certain terms and conditions. Plaintiff was supposed to
obtain the signatures of some persons who did not put the signatures in
Ex.A.3. He received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from one Srinivasulu and
others as admitted by him in cross examination. The defendant was
always ready and willing to pay the part of amount which he agreed
under Ex.A.3, but the plaintiff was evading to receive the same. Plaintiff
would not have signed Ex.A.3 had the terms and conditions were not
voluntary. Not only the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had
defective title but also even the contention of the plaintiff has no force by
virtue of concluded terms of understanding letter under Ex.A.3. The
learned Additional District Judge rightly decreed the suit partly, as such,
there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and therefore, appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
12) The admitted facts are that the defendant executed Ex.A.1
agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff in respect of property whose
particulars were there. As seen from Ex.A.1, the plaintiff claimed to have
purchased the property and the so-called plots are located in
Sy.Nos.467, 478/2A, 478/2B, 478/2C and 478/2D and out of the said
plots, he purchased plot No.140 with specific boundaries. The nature
and the description of the property is same in Ex.A.2. At the outset, the
contention of the plaintiff that the defendant represented that the plaint
schedule property is located in Sy.No.467 only is negatived by virtue of
the contents in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The plaintiff obtained Ex.A.1 knowing
fully well about the contents. He also obtained Ex.A.2 sale deed whose
survey numbers are same as mentioned in Ex.A.1. The pleadings of the
plaintiff that the defendant represented that the plaint schedule property
is located in Sy.No.467 only, is negatived by virtue of description of the
plots in the schedule of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2.
13) Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1, who is the plaintiff, he
put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through his examination
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. Ex.A.1 was agreement of sale, dated
02.03.2012. Ex.A.2 was registered sale deed, dated 29.03.2012. Ex.A.3
was understanding document, dated 10.04.2013. Ex.A.4 was office copy
of legal notice, dated 19.10.2012. Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 were served postal
acknowledgments. Plaintiff examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 the so-called
mediators, who speak of the factum of purchase of the property by the
plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The contents of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are
not in dispute. It reveals that the property purchased by the plaintiff is
located in different survey numbers as above.
14) Even according to the pleadings of the plaintiff there was an
understanding letter handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is to
be noted that the letter under Ex.A.3 cannot be taken as unilateral one.
Plaintiff was a party who signed the same. As seen from Ex.A.3, source
of title of the property was there. It reads that originally on 21.06.2008
one K. Guna obtained a registered document No.2401/2008 through
GPA agent P. Srinivasulu of Y. Niranjan Reddy. Later, on 03.09.2010
one C.K. Srinivasulu purchased the property vide document
No.2922/2010 from K. Guna. Later, C.K. Srinivasulu sold away the
property to M. Surbramanyam Reddy under an agreement, dated
19.03.2011, which was registered as document No.3265/2011. Later,
the property was purchased from Y. Sambasiva Reddy by the defendant.
Apart from this, Ex.A.3 was supposed to be signed by Y. Sambasiva
Reddy, M. Subramanyam Reddy, C.K. Srinivasulu and K. Guna. The
terms are such that the defendant agreed to pay Rs.2,14,000/- on or
before 28.04.2013 to the plaintiff. The second party M. Subramanyam
Reddy agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- on or before 28.04.2013 to
the plaintiff. The third party C.K. Srinivasulu agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 10.10.2013 through cheque No.110103,
dated 10.10.2013. Lastly, K. Guna agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,64,000/-
to the plaintiff. Alternative condition in respect of K. Guna is also that he
is at liberty to collect the amounts from party No.1 to 3 to a tune of
Rs.7,21,000/- and he has to include his amount of Rs.7,64,000/- and he
can purchase another site which is not in dispute. If K. Guna failed to do
so, he has to pay Rs.7,64,000/- to the plaintiff.
15) Now it is appropriate to look into admissions made by P.W.1
and D.W.1 in cross examination.
16) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, who is no other than
the plaintiff in cross examination he admitted that after issuing Ex.A.4
legal notice Ex.A.3 came into existence. He, defendant and Srinivasulu
have signed in Ex.A.3 document. He signed in Ex.A.3 after agreeing
terms mentioned in it. It is true that as per Ex.A.3 terms Srinivasulu
issued bank cheque to him for Rs.3,00,000/-. It is true that he encashed
the cheque issued for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. He agreed to receive
Rs.2,14,000/- from the defendant. It is true that the defendant is ready to
pay Rs.2,14,000/-. He deposed that he is not ready to receive the
amount as remaining persons mentioned in Ex.A.3 did not pay the
amount as agreed. He deposed that as per Ex.A.3 he agreed to receive
Rs.3,07,000/- from M. Subramanyam Reddy, but he did not receive any
amount from him. He denied that he received money from M.
Subramanyam Reddy. He denied that the defendant is liable to pay only
Rs.2,14,000/- as per Ex.A.3. During further chief examination he
deposed that he returned a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to Srinivasulu as Ex.A.3
terms were not acted upon. During further cross examination he deposed
that he received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from M. Subramanyam Reddy
and issued a receipt. He denied that he did not return the amount to
Srinivasulu and Subramanyam Reddy.
17) As evident from the evidence of D.W.1, he put forth the facts
in tune with the pleadings. During cross examination he deposed that he
purchased only one plot and sold the same. The contents of Ex.A.1 are
true. He received consideration of Rs.15,45,700/- from the plaintiff basing
on Ex.A.1 and executed a registered sale deed. He denied that Ex.A.3
understanding agreement came into existence at his instance. He
denied that it was prepared at his instance. He admitted that one
Subramanyam Reddy and K. Guna did not sign Ex.A.3. Plaintiff has to
obtain the signatures of Subramanyam Reddy and K. Guna in Ex.A.3
understanding agreement. He denied that it is his duty to get the
signatures. He denied that he is deposing false.
18) It is to be noted that the contention of the plaintiff is that
Ex.A.3 was thrown away on him and he did not agree to the terms and
conditions. If he did not agree for the terms and conditions, it is not
understandable as to why he could sign Ex.A.3 as admitted by him. The
fact that he received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from K. Srinivasulu and
further received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from Subramanyam Reddy goes
to prove that he signed Ex.A.3 accepting the terms and conditions. In the
pleadings he did not reveal the fact that he received a sum of
Rs.1,30,000/- from Subramanyam Reddy but he was made to admit in
cross examination. So, the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A.3
were concluded one. Knowing fully well Subramanyam Reddy and K.
Guna did not sign Ex.A.3, but the plaintiff ventured to sign and ventured
to accept a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from Srinivasulu. Though he deposed
in further chief examination that he returned a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to
Srinivasulu, as other persons did not pay the amount, but no semblance
of proof is filed to show that he returned the amount. He received the
amount by encashing the cheque from Srinivasulu. Regarding the
alleged defective title which the plaintiff failed to establish Ex.A.3 came
into existence whose terms and conditions were concluded. However,
Ex.A.3 is missing the signatures of other persons. So, the plaintiff instead
of seeking appropriate remedy to enforce the terms and conditions in
Ex.A.3, wanted to get the entire amount which he paid under Ex.A.1.
The terms and conditions in Ex.A.3 were appears to be voluntary in view
of the admissions made. Plaintiff did not show other persons who did not
sign in Ex.A.3 as parties to the suit. However, he received some amounts
from other persons also. Therefore, with the evidence available on
record, the learned Additional District Judge rightly enforced the terms
and conditions in Ex.A.3 as against the defendant who was duty bound to
pay Rs.2,14,000/-. The thrust of contention of the plaintiff in instituting
the suit for recovery of amount paid under Ex.A.1 was the so-called
defective title which the plaintiff miserably failed to establish. However,
the parties brought into existence in Ex.A.3. The so-called other persons
who agreed to pay certain amounts to the plaintiff are not parties to the
suit. Hence, the plaintiff cannot go back deviating from Ex.A.3.
19) Having regard to the above, the learned Additional District
Judge rightly decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.2,14,000/-. Hence, this
Court does not see any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the
learned Additional District Judge.
20) In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.19.06.2024.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 19.06.2024
PGR
